Torres v. Madden

Filing 6

ORDER (1) Construing 5 Motion for Order to Show Cause, As One for Extension of Time; (2) Granting Motion; and (3) Re-Notifying Petitioner of Filing-Fee or IFP Requirement. It is ordered that Petitioner's case remains dismissed without preju dice. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case he must, no later than 9/29/2017, either (1) 1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or (2) move to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/26/2017. (IFP packet Mailed). (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL ANGEL TORRES,

Case No. 17cv865 JLS (PCL)
Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) CONSTRUING MOTION
AS ONE FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME; (2) GRANTING MOTION;
AND (3) RE-NOTIFYING
PETITIONER OF FILING-FEE OR
IFP REQUIREMENT

v.
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16

(ECF No. 5)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause and Motion to
Comply to Court Order (“Ext. Mot.”). (ECF No. 5) Read together, Petitioner (1) requests
that the Court “[ex]cuse his lack of procedural facts[,]” and “submits [(2)] his $5.00 filing
fee and [(3)] all the grounds submitted at the California Supreme Court for review and
exhaustion.” (Ext. Mot. 1–2.) Given the foregoing, the Court construes Petitioner’s Motion
as one for an extension of time by which to respond to the Court’s prior Order Dismissing
Case Without Prejudice and Giving Notice of Options Due to Failure to Exhaust State
Court Remedies (“Prior Dismissal Order”). (ECF No. 2.)
Previously, the Court dismissed without prejudice Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus due to (1) Petitioner’s failure to either pay the required $5.00 filing fee or
move for in forma pauperis status, (Prior Dismissal Order 1), and (2) Petitioner’s failure
1
17cv865 JLS (PCL)

1

to indicate that two of his five claims had been exhausted in state Court, (id. at 2). The

2

Court then “notifie[d] Petitioner of his options[,]” (id. at 2; see also id. at 3–5 (outlining in

3

full Petitioner’s options)), and gave Petitioner until July 7, 2017, to correct the above-

4

described deficiencies, (id. at 6). On June 16, 2017, Petitioner attempted to comply, in part,

5

with the Court’s Order by filing a non-compliant document stating that it was a scrivener’s

6

error that “[P]etitioner did not mark on the respective space to state that he had already

7

filed the claims four and five, as he did on claims one, two and three.” (ECF No. 3-1

8

(noncompliant, Court-rejected document entitled “Motion in Support of Clerical Error”).)

9

Petitioner did not mention the filing fee. (See id.)

10

Next, on July 14, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant Motion, (Ext. Mot. 1), attempting

11

to detail “all the grounds submitted at the California Supreme Court for review and

12

exhaustion[,]” (Ext. Mot. 2).1 Accordingly, it appears that Petitioner has chosen the first

13

option outlined in the Court’s prior Order. (See Prior Dismissal Order 3 (“Petitioner may

14

file further papers with this Court to demonstrate that he has in fact exhausted the claims

15

the Court has determined are unexhausted.”).) And although it is not entirely clear that

16

Petitioner has in fact exhausted each claim, (compare Ext. Mot. 6–9 (potentially the point-

17

headings from the underlying habeas petition to the California Supreme Court, alleging

18

that “cumulative prejudicial effect” or errors “denied [Petitioner] a fair trial under state and

19

federal due process[,]” but nowhere mentioning any alleged failure by counsel to seek a

20

mistrial), with Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20, 25 (Petitioner’s federal habeas petition

21

arguing that “the cumulative effect of errors . . . violat[ed] . . . federal due process

22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner’s latest filing, although dated July 6, 2017, (Ext. Mot. 1), was not received until July 14, 2017,
and therefore is not timely pursuant to the Court’s Prior Dismissal Order, (see Prior Dismissal Order 6).
However, it is clear that Petitioner attempted to at least partially comply with the Court’s directive, (see
ECF No. 3), and Petitioner further notes in his Extension Motion that “the person who was helping
[P]etitioner to file his habeas corpus [petition] was transferred to another prison, taking with him any
documents filed in any court, without explaining [to] petitioner any of the document[s] [which had been]
filed or any due dates[,]” (Ext. Mot. 1). Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s
Motion for an extension of time by which to respond to the Court’s Prior Dismissal Order.
2
17cv865 JLS (PCL)

1

principles” and that “Counsel violated [P]etitioner’s 6th Amend[ment rights] . . . whe[n]

2

he failed to move for a mistrial”), ECF No. 1), the Court accepts Petitioner’s argument.

3

However, although Petitioner in his Extension Motion states that he “submits his

4

$5.00 filing fee[,]” (Ext. Mot. 2), and attaches a Moneygram receipt for $5.00, (id. at 12),

5

the Court has not received Petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, Petitioner’s case

6

REMAINS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with

7

this case he must, no later than September 29, 2017, either (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or

8

(2) move to proceed in forma pauperis. If petitioner chooses to pay the $5.00 filing fee, he

9

should submit the fee simultaneously with a copy of this Order and reference the case

10

name—Miguel Angel Torres v. Warden Raymond Madden—as well as the case number—

11

17cv865-JLS (PCL). See also Fees of the U.S. District Court; 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and Local

12

Rule 4.5, United States District Court (Feb. 8, 2017), https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/

13

Attorneys/SiteAssets/SitePages/FeesOfTheUSDistrictCourt/FEE%20SCHEDULE%20Ef

14

f%202-8-17.pdf (explaining Southern District of California filing fee amounts and

15

payment procedures).

16

Additionally, although the Clerk of Court previously sent Petitioner a blank Southern

17

District of California In Forma Pauperis Application, (see Prior Dismissal Order 6), the

18

Clerk of Court SHALL send another blank form along with a copy of this Order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17cv865 JLS (PCL)